Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2023 Mar 2;18(3):e0282155. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0282155

Structure of the T. brucei kinetoplastid RNA editing substrate-binding complex core component, RESC5

Raul Salinas 1,#, Emily Cannistraci 1,#, Maria A Schumacher 1,*
Editor: Alexander F Palazzo2
PMCID: PMC9980740  PMID: 36862634

Abstract

Kinetoplastid protists such as Trypanosoma brucei undergo an unusual process of mitochondrial uridine (U) insertion and deletion editing termed kinetoplastid RNA editing (kRNA editing). This extensive form of editing, which is mediated by guide RNAs (gRNAs), can involve the insertion of hundreds of Us and deletion of tens of Us to form a functional mitochondrial mRNA transcript. kRNA editing is catalyzed by the 20 S editosome/RECC. However, gRNA directed, processive editing requires the RNA editing substrate binding complex (RESC), which is comprised of 6 core proteins, RESC1-RESC6. To date there are no structures of RESC proteins or complexes and because RESC proteins show no homology to proteins of known structure, their molecular architecture remains unknown. RESC5 is a key core component in forming the foundation of the RESC complex. To gain insight into the RESC5 protein we performed biochemical and structural studies. We show that RESC5 is monomeric and we report the T. brucei RESC5 crystal structure to 1.95 Å. RESC5 harbors a dimethylarginine dimethylaminohydrolase-like (DDAH) fold. DDAH enzymes hydrolyze methylated arginine residues produced during protein degradation. However, RESC5 is missing two key catalytic DDAH residues and does bind DDAH substrate or product. Implications of the fold for RESC5 function are discussed. This structure provides the first structural view of an RESC protein.

Introduction

Trypanosoma brucei, T. cruzi and Leishmania belong to the kinetoplastid clade within the phylum Euglenozoa and are the causative agents of African sleeping sickness, Chagas disease and leishmaniasis, respectively [13]. These flagellated protists are named for their unusual mitochondrial DNA, the kinetoplast, which is comprised of dozens of maxicircles and thousands of minicircles that are concatenated into a compacted network [13]. In addition to rRNAs, the mitochondrial maxicircles harbor 18 protein encoding genes, which primarily generate protein subunits of the respiratory chain [4]. However, for these mitochondrial mRNAs to be translated, a unique and extensive form of editing called kinetoplastid RNA editing (kRNA editing) is required [511]. This form of editing, which is essential for protist viability, involves the insertion and deletion of uridines (U) within the transcript to generate translatable mitochondrial mRNAs [511]. Most of the protein coding transcripts are heavily edited, termed pan editing [58]. Pan editing involves multiple insertion and deletion steps and is mediated by several gRNAs within one mRNA transcript. This form of editing is so extreme that hundreds of Us may be inserted and tens of Us deleted, leading to transcripts that are often double the size of the pre-edited mRNA. The editing process is catalyzed by large, multiprotein editosome/RNA editing core complexes (RECC) and directed by guide RNA (gRNAs), the latter of which are primarily encoded on minicircle DNA [12, 13].

Interestingly, the editosome/RECC, although responsible for performing the catalytic steps, only permits a single step of editing [14]. Indeed, the process is highly dynamic and studies revealed that complete kRNA editing requires accessory factors, which mediate RNA interactions and processivity [6, 1536]. Most of these accessory factors show no homology to structurally characterized proteins and because of the essentiality of kRNA editing, these factors have been suggested as attractive targets for specific chemotherapeutic design. Early studies identified several accessory factors involved in editing that were later shown to be required for editing single mRNA transcripts such as MRP1/MRP2, p22 and MRB1590 [16, 18, 21]. Subsequent work uncovered a macromolecular complex consisting of six core proteins that plays an essential role in processive editing of transcripts and which is also responsible for gRNA binding and stability [20, 32, 33, 36]. This complex, which was simultaneously discovered by the Stuart, Aphasizhev and Lukeš lab, was called the RNA-editing substrate-binding complex (RESC) and is now known to serve as the central platform for RNA editing [20, 32, 33, 36]. Further underscoring the importance of this complex, recent data indicates that the RESC also acts as a hub for the coordination of editing with other RNA processing events such as mRNA maturation and translation [7, 8, 11]. Two hybrid and pulldown studies in the Read laboratory revealed information about the assembly of the RESC complex including that it is dynamic and composed of six core subunits, called RESC1-RESC6, that interact in an RNA-independent manner [26]. Interestingly, none of the RESC core proteins show homology to proteins of known structure and there is currently no structural information for any RESC component. More recent work has indicated that the RESC may be larger with as many as 13 subunits, in addition to the core six components [37].

Of the six core RESC proteins, RESC1 and RESC2 (formerly called GAP1/GRBC1 and GAP2/GRBC2) form a heteromeric complex, RESC1-RESC2, that is responsible for gRNA binding and stabilization; gap knockouts lead to destabilization and loss of all gRNAs and hence such knockouts abrogate editing [20, 32, 33, 36]. Similar knockdown studies revealed essential roles for RESC5 (formerly called MRB11870) in kRNA editing; cells depleted of RESC5 exhibited 80–90% decrease in edited mRNAs and 2–4 fold increases in pre-edited mRNAs [25, 27, 28]. In addition, the knockdown cells also showed defects at 3´ most editing sites suggesting a failure in the initiation of editing in these cells as editing proceeds from a 3´ to 5´ direction within a transcript [25, 27, 28]. Pulldown experiments indicate that RESC5 appears to be a key part of the foundation for the RESC complex, as downregulation of the proteins dramatically affected interactions within the RESC core [25, 27, 28].

RESC5 contains 310 residues and like other RESC proteins, shows no homology to structurally characterized proteins. Thus, to gain insight into this RESC component we performed structural and biochemical studies. We describe here the 1.95 Å structure of the T. brucei RESC5 protein, which represents the first report of an RESC protein structure. Our data show that RESC5 is a monomeric protein. Surface analyses of the RESC5 structure highlight potential binding sites for proteins and RNA. Structural homology searches revealed that the RESC5 structure harbors a fold that is similar to that found in the dimethylarginine dimethylaminohydrolase (DDAH) enzymes. However, RESC5 is missing key DDAH catalytic residues and hence the RESC5 fold appears to have adapted to a distinct function [3843]. Thus, these data reveal the high-resolution structure of a central component required for kRNA editing in kinetoplastids.

Materials and methods

Purification of T. brucei RESC5 proteins

Multiple sequence alignments revealed that RESC5 residues 1–6 are not conserved and are predicted to be disordered (using the GOR4 server) [44]. Hence, a synthetic gene, encoding RESC5 residues 7–310, that was codon optimized for expression in E. coli, was obtained from Genscript and subcloned into the NdeI and XhoI sites of the pET15b expression vector. RESC5(7–310) was, however, insoluble under all conditions tested and hence pure protein could not be obtained. Because RESC5 C-terminal residues 287–310 were also predicted to be largely composed of coil regions or disordered (using the GOR4 server) [44] and are also not conserved among Trypanosome RESC5 homologs, RESC5(7–286) was generated and was found to be expressed at high levels in soluble form. An RESC5(R71A-P180H-A277C) synthetic gene (encompassing residues 7–286) was also generated, codon optimized for E. coli expression and subcloned into the NdeI and XhoI sites of the pET15b expression vector. Expression of both RESC5(7–286) proteins results in the addition of an N-terminal hexa-histidine tag for purification. Constructs were transformed into E. coli C41(DE3) cells. For protein expression, RESC5(7–286) and the RESC5 mutant plasmid containing cells were grown to an OD600 of 0.5–0.6 and induced with 1 mM IPTG at 15°C overnight. For purification of both the WT and mutant RESC5(7–286), cells were lysed in buffer A (25 mM Tris pH 7.5, 300 mM NaCl, 5% (v/v) glycerol, 1 mM β-mercaptoethanol (βME)) using a microfluidizer and cell debris removed by centrifugation at 34,900 xg. The lysate was loaded onto a Cobalt NTA column and the column washed with increasing concentrations of imidazole in buffer A. Proteins were eluted in batch mode with 30, 40, 50, 75, 100, 200, 300 500 mM imidazole fractions and samples containing the protein were concentrated prior to loading onto an S75 size exclusion chromatography (SEC) column for final purification. Pure fractions were combined and concentrated for biochemical and crystallographic studies.

Crystallization and structure determination of RESC5(7–287)

Purified RESC5(7–287) was concentrated to 15 mg/mL and utilized in hanging drop vapor diffusion screens at room temperature (rt). For these screens, Wizard screens I-IV, PegRx1, PegRx2 and Cryo screens I and II were utilized. Crystals were produced in conditions containing high molecular weight PEGs (PEG 4000, PEG 6000 and PEG 8000) and LiSO4. Optimal crystals were obtained by mixing the protein 1:1 with a solution consisting of 20% PEG 6000, 0.1 M Imidazole pH 8.0, 0.2 M LiSO4 and took one week to reach maximum size. The crystals were cryo-preserved by looping and dipping a crystal for 1–2 s in a solution containing the crystallization reagent supplemented with 25% (v/v) glycerol. Data were collected at the Advanced Light Source (ALS) beamline 5.0.2 and processed with XDS [45]. Native data were collected to 1.95 Å and to obtain phases, crystals were soaked for 3 days in HgCl2. A Mercury SAD data set was collected to 2.3 Å resolution and used to obtain an initial set of phases in Phenix_Autosol [46]. There are two subunits in the crystallographic asymmetric unit (ASU). After a partial structure was constructed using Coot [47], Phenix refinement [46] commenced resulting in significantly improved map allowing for residues 7–285 of each subunit to be constructed. For final refinement the high-resolution native data set was utilized. Using these data, the structure was refined to final Rwork/Rfree values of 22.1%/25.7% to 1.95 Å resolution.

Thermal shift assays

Thermal shift assays were performed using Bio-Rad CFX Connect Detection System. For these assays 10 μM of RESC5 WT and mutant proteins were analyzed in the absence and presence of varying concentrations of L-citruline (AdooQ Bioscience) or dimethylamino arginine (AdooQ Bioscience). The RESC5 proteins and all other reagents used in this experiment were diluted in filter sterilized low salt buffer (25 mM Tris pH 7.5, 150 mM NaCl, 5% (v/v) glycerol, and 1mM β-ME). Melting curves were collected for 10 μM of RESC5 (WT or mutant), in the presence of 0 μM, 100 μM, 200 μM, 500 μM and 1 mM of L-citrulline or dimethylamino arginine. The appropriate volumes of RESC5 protein, L-citrulline, or dimethylamino arginine for each condition described above were added to wells of a 96 well Bio-Rad Hard-Shell Plate (thin walls) containing a final volume of 20 μL and 1X of GloMelt (GloMeltTM Thermal Shift Protein Stability Kit from Biotium-Cat No. 33021–1). The plates were briefly spun before to transfer to the Bio-Rad CFX Connect Detection System. Fluorescence was detected over a temperature range of 25–100°C with 0.5°C steps and a time hold of 1 min for each temperature step.

Size exclusion chromatography (SEC) analyses

SEC studies were carried out on RESC5 at 2.7 mg/mL. The protein was injected onto a Superdex S75 column (Fisher) with a mobile phase of 50 mM Tris pH 7.5, 150 mM NaCl, 5% (v/v) glycerol. The RESC5 elution volume was compared to a series of protein standards to determine the molecular weight. The standards were aprotinin (6.5 kDa), cytochrome c oxidase (12 kDa), carbonic anhydrase (29 kDa), and albumin (66 kDa).

Bioinformatic analyses of phylogenetics

For bioinformatic analyses of DDAH proteins, DDAH sequences were searched for and analyzed using the UniPort database. RESC5 homologs were searched for using NCBI protein Blast. RESC5 homologs were only found in kinetoplastids. Hence a FASTA file containing 22 RESC5 were downloaded from a variety of kinetoplasidae. No DDAH homologs were identified in the eukaryotic phyla Annelida, Chidaria, Echinodermata, Mollusca, Porifera, Ctenophora, Rotifera and Nematodes. FASTA files from chordates, eubacteria, and arthropods were combined, then this combined FASTA file and the FASTA file for kinetoplastidae were fed into Clustal Omega to perform sequence alignments. Alignment files were obtained from Clustal Omega then aligned sequences were analyzed in Jalview 2.112.4. Jalview was used to calculate evolutionary distances between the aligned sequences using Neighbor Joining and BLOSUM62. This tree was saved as a Newick file then fed into PhyloT to generate a phylogenetic tree. iTol was used to visualize and annotate the phylogenetic tree [48].

Results

Overall crystal structure of T. brucei RESC5

Studies have shown that downregulation of RESC5 dramatically impacts stabilization and formation of the RESC core [27]. To gain insight into the structure and function of RESC5 we performed biochemical and structural studies. We first characterized the oligomeric state of RESC5 as to date there is little information as to the oligomerization status of the components within the RESC core. Size exclusion chromatography (SEC) studies revealed a clear, single peak for the purified RESC5 protein with an estimated molecular weight (MW) of 30 kDa, consistent with a monomeric form of the protein (which has a predicted MW of 32 kDa) (Fig 1A and 1B; S1 Fig). We next performed crystallization trials on the RESC5 protein. Crystals that diffracted to high resolution were obtained and the structure solved by mercury single wavelength anomalous diffraction (SAD) to 1.95 Å resolution (Table 1) (Fig 2; S2 Fig). There are two RESC5 subunits in the crystallographic asymmetric unit (ASU). PISA analysis shows that the largest buried surface area (BSA) between subunits is only ~240 Å2 [49], consistent with our SEC data indicating that the protein is monomeric. The two monomers in the ASU superimpose with a root mean square deviation of 0.6 Å for 274 Cα atoms indicating they adopt the same structure. The only differences are in two surface exposed loops (residues 18–34 and 159–167), which appear flexible. Hence, we will limit the discussion to a single monomer. The RESC5 structure is composed of one domain and harbors a propeller-like fold comprised of 13 β-strands and 10 helices (Fig 2). The topology is (β1: residues 11–17; α1: 35–51; β2: 57–61; α2: 67–75; β3: 76–79; β4: 82–85; α3:95–108; α4: 116–120; α5: 127–130; β5: 131–134; β6:138–142; α6: 148–158; β7:168–173; α7:181–184; β8:185–188; β9:192–196; α8:199–211; β10:218–222; β11:239–243; α9:247–256; β12:259–263; α10: 266–271; β13: 280–285). In the structure there are five similar modular “blades” with each containing a two or three-stranded β-sheet packed against an α-helix (Fig 2).

Fig 1. Size exclusion chromatography (SEC) analyses of RESC5 reveals monomer.

Fig 1

A SEC analysis of the T. brucei RESC5. The SEC profile is shown. B SEC analyses of MW. The x and y axes are Log MW and column volume, respectively. RESC5 eluted at calculated MWs of 30 kDa (yellow triangle). The standards used for calculation of the standard curve are shown as blue diamonds and were aproptinin (6.5 kDa), cytochrome c oxidase (12.4 kDa), carbonic anhydrase (29 kDa), and albumin (66 kDa).

Table 1. Data collection and refinement statistics: T. brucei RESC5.

Protein RESC5
Data collection
Pdb code 8DPK
Space group P21
Cell dimensions
a, b, c (Å) 45.6, 80.5, 76.1
α, β, γ (°) 90.0, 102.7, 90.0
Resolution (Å) 54.52–1.95
(2.01–1.95)a
Rsym 0.070 (0.274)
Rpim 0.044 (0.228)
I/σI 7.4 (1.0)
Completeness (%) 99.1 (89.0)
Redundancy 3.0 (2.1)
CC(1/2) 0.994 (0.673)
Refinement
Resolution (Å) 54.52–1.95
No. reflections 38130 (2269)
Rwork/Rfree (%) 22.1/25.7
R.m.s. deviations
Bond lengths (Å) 0.004
Bond angles (°) 0.623
Ramachandran analyses
Favored (%) 97.4
Disallowed (%) 0.0

aValues in parentheses are for highest-resolution shell.

Fig 2. Crystal structure of T. brucei RESC5.

Fig 2

Cartoon figure of RESC5 with strands colored magenta and helices, cyan. Shown are two views of the structure related by a 90° rotation about the y axis. Secondary structure elements are labeled in the view on the left. All ribbon diagrams were made using PyMOL [58].

RESC5 harbors a propeller-fold with homology to dimethylarginine dimethylaminohydrolases

DALI searches revealed the RESC5 structure shows the most significant structural similarity to proteins belonging to the superfamily of arginine-glycine amidotransferases (3.75.10.10) [3843], with the strongest homology to dimethylarginine dimethylaminohydrolases (DDAH) of this superfamily. Dimethylarginine residues, which are produced during protein degradation, are potent inhibitors of nitric oxide synthase (NOS). Hence, hydrolysis of dimethylarginines by DDAH enzymes enhances the production of nitric oxide (NO) while inhibition of DDAH activity blocks NO synthesis leading to vasoconstriction [3843]. Superimposition of 247 Cα atoms of RESC5 onto the corresponding Cα atoms of bovine DDAH (pdb code: 2CI6), using the secondary-structure matching (SSM) program [50] results in an rmsd of 2.4 Å and a Z-score of 13.0 (Fig 3A). The RESC5 structure also shows weak homology to the structure of the ribosome anti-association factor IF6 (pdb code: 1G61), another β-propellor fold family member; the two structures can be overlaid in SSM, resulting in an rmsd of 3.5 Å and a Z-score of 5.8 for 165 Cα atoms (S3 Fig) [50, 51]. Interestingly, IF6 proteins function in protein-protein interactions as does RESC5, with IF6 forming a complex with the large ribosomal subunit. In this complex, IF6 inhibits the interaction of the large subunit with the small subunit, thus regulating translation [52, 53].

Fig 3. T. brucei RESC5 has a DDAH fold.

Fig 3

A Overlay of T. brucei RESC5 (pink) and bovine DDAH (pdb code: 2CI6) structures (green). The overlay shows that although the positioning of secondary structural show some differences, they both contain the same overall fold. B Close up of the overlay from Fig 3A showing positions of key active site residues in DDAH. Also shown as sticks and labeled is the citrulline bound in the DDAH structure. While important arginine and aspartic acid residues in the active sites are conserved between the two proteins, central catalytic residues from the catalytic triad Cysteine-Histidine are Alanine-Proline in RESC5. C Structure based sequence alignment of T. brucei RESC5 with DDAH. DDAH used is pdb id code: 2CI6 (from the alignment shown in Fig 3A). In the sequence alignment conserved residues between the two proteins are colored grey. Yellow residues are those involved in catalysis or substrate/product binding by DDAH. Note, several of these residues are conserved in RESC5. However, notably the catalytic cysteine and histidine (asterisks) are not.

As noted, however, the strongest structural homology detected with RESC5 in the protein data bank are to DDAH enzymes, which hydrolyze dimethylarginine substrates. Indeed, an unbiased search (CavityPlus) for the presence of pockets in the RESC5 structure [54] revealed the location corresponding to the active site in DDAH enzymes as a cavity in RESC5 (S4 Fig). The catalytic function of DDAH enzymes have been well studied and revealed that the active site is composed of a conserved Cys-His-Glu triad, with the cysteine residue functioning as the nucleophile [39, 41]. Mutagenesis studies showed that the active site cysteine is essential for DDAH activity as substitution of this residue to alanine essentially abrogated DDAH catalysis [55].

In addition to the Cys-His-Glu triad, the DDAH active site contains several conserved residues important for substrate binding [55]. Examination of the superimposition of RESC5 onto DDAH revealed that the catalytic cysteine and histidine are not conserved in RESC5 and are replaced by alanine and proline residues, respectively (Fig 3B). In addition, the pockets show differences in overall architecture with some helices in DDAH replaced by loop regions in RESC5 (Fig 3A and 3B). However, several pocket residues are conserved between RESC5 and DDAH. For example, Asp73, Asp78, Arg98 and Arg145 in DDAH (pdb code: 2CI6) correspond to Glu68, Asp74, Arg94 and Arg145 in RESC5 (Fig 3B and 3C).

The conservation of some pocket residues between RESC5 and DDAH prompted us to ask if RESC5 could bind DDAH substrates or the DDAH product L-citrulline. To address this question, we employed thermal shift assays (Materials and methods) and analyzed the ability of RESC5 to interact with L-dimethylarginine or citrulline. The control experiment with just RESC5 revealed a thermal shift of 39°C. Data collected on RESC5 in the presence of citrulline or dimethylarginine using concentrations up to 1 mM revealed no interaction of either citrulline or L-dimethylarginine for RESC5; no change in the thermal shifts were observed upon the addition of these compounds (Fig 4A). To assess if replacement of RESC5 Ala277 and Pro180 with the corresponding residues in DDAH enzymes would impact interaction with citrulline or L-dimethylarginine we generated a RESC5 mutant. In addition to the P180H-A277C substitutions, we substituted the RESC5 Arg71 with alanine as examination of the binding pocket showed the presence of the arginine at position 71 would be predicted to clash with the substrate/product (Fig 3B). The R277A substitution was chosen instead of the phenylalanine found in DDAH enzymes because RESC5 residue Ile273 directly abuts the 277 position and would clash with a phenylalanine; this does not occur in DDAH enzymes because the corresponding region adopts a different structure in the DDAH enzyme (S5 Fig). The RESC5(R71A-P180H-A277C) was purified and utilized in thermal shift assays as per the WT RESC5. These experiments revealed that the mutant RESC5 protein had a higher melting temperature, however there was no evidence of the mutant interacting with citrulline or L-dimethylarginine (Fig 4B). This may be explained by the noted difference in overall pocket architecture between RESC5 and DDAH.

Fig 4. Thermal shift assays analyzing RESC5 binding to DDAH substrate and product.

Fig 4

A Melting curves for 10 μM WT RESC5 in the presence of varying concentrations of L-citrulline and dimethylaminoarginine. Data was scaled from 0–1. B Melting curves for 10 μM RESC5(R71A-P180H-S277C) in the presence of varying concentrations of L-citrulline and dimethylaminoarginine. Data was scaled from 0–1. Error bars represent standard deviations from the average (of at least three technical triplicate runs).

Surface properties of RESC5: Implications for protein-protein and protein-RNA interactions

RESC5 forms a key core component of the RESC complex as data indicates that it interacts with RESC6 and the RESC1-RESC2 subcomplex [26]. The RESC complex appears conserved among trypanosomes. Hence, we performed a sequence alignment of RESC5 homologs from Trypanosome species and utilized the alignment to map conserved residues on the RESC5 surface to gain insight into potential regions that may be involved in protein-protein interactions (Fig 5A). These analyses revealed several large patches of conserved residues on the RESC5 surface that may be involved in RESC complex formation (Fig 5B). In addition, while studies have demonstrated that RESC1 and RESC2 are the components of the RESC that mediate interactions with gRNAs, other proteins in the complex may participate in RNA interactions. Indeed, RNase treatment of RESC and accessory components leads to reduced interactions between some factors [26]. Thus, we analyzed the RESC5 electrostatic surface potential (Fig 6A and 6B). There are two major extended and exposed basic patches on RESC5, which may be available for nucleic acid interaction (Fig 6A and 6B). Interestingly, the largest patch corresponds to the location of the active site in DDAH enzymes suggesting this pocket might be involved in RNA binding. This region is also notably conserved among RESC5 proteins and hence could participate in both RNA and/or protein interactions (Fig 5B).

Fig 5. Multiple sequence alignment of putative RESC5 homologs and conserved surface residues.

Fig 5

Homolog IDs are indicated to the left. Secondary structural information from the crystal structure is shown above sequence blocks and key residues that interact with RESC6 are boxed and the interface they mediate contacts with (1 or 2) are indicated under the alignment. The proteins are: XP_823393.1; hypothetical protein, conserved [Trypanosoma brucei brucei TREU927; RESC5], the protein under study, RHW69169.1; Mitochondrial RNA binding protein [Trypanosoma brucei equiperdum]. KAG8344931.1; putative amidinotransferase [Trypanosoma vivax], KAH9578299.1; hypothetical protein LSM04_001006 [Trypanosoma melophagium], XP_028884646.1 putative amidinotransferase [Trypanosoma theileri], XP_029237384.1; putative amidinotransferase [Trypanosoma rangeli], XP_811845.1; hypothetical protein [Trypanosoma cruzi strain CL Brener], KAG5495086.1; hypothetical protein JKF63_02139 [Porcisia hertigi], XP_010702224.1; mitochondrial RNA binding protein, putative [Leishmania panamensis], XP_015655064.1 putative mitochondrial RNA binding protein [Leptomonas pyrrhocoris]. B surface representation of the RESC5 structure colored according to conservation (from the alignment in Fig 5A). Pink regions represent highly conserved regions while dark grey are not conserved. Shown are two “sides” of the molecule. The pocket corresponding to the active site pocket in DDAH is labeled “pocket” and is conserved.

Fig 6. Electrostatic surface potential of RESC5 reveals potential nucleic acid binding patches.

Fig 6

A RESC5 displayed as a ribbon diagram with the residues corresponding to the catalytic cysteine in DDAH enzymes (an alanine in RESC5) colored red. B RESC5 shown as an electrostatic surface representation with blue and red regions representing positive and negative regions, respectively.

Phylogenetic analyses of RESC5 and DDAH enzymes

The structural similarity of T. brucei RESC5 to DDAH enzymes led us to ask if DDAH proteins are found in Trypanosomes and other kinetoplastids and also whether RESC5-like proteins are present in other organisms. Notably, when we searched for RESC5 homologs in other organisms, the only clear RESC5 proteins we identified were from the class kinetoplastida, including the genus Trypanosoma and Leishmania in which the RESC complex has been biologically characterized (Fig 7A). Phylogenetic analyses of the DDAH enzyme revealed that homologs are widespread in higher eukaryotes but absent in the eukaryotic phyla Annelida, Chidaria, Echinodermata, Mollusca, Porifera, Ctenophora, Rotifera and Nematodes (Fig 7B). Most notably, no DDAH homologs were identified in kinetoplastids. Hence, whether the two protein folds (RESC5 and DDAH) are the result of a convergent evolution process or whether they may be derived from a protein with a similar fold is unclear. It will be of interest to further decipher the functions of RESC5 to see if it harbors capabilities to bind substrates within the DDAH-like pocket or whether it performs roles completely unrelated to the DDAH proteins.

Fig 7. Phylogenetic trees for RESC5 and DDAH.

Fig 7

A Phylogenetic tree for the RESC5 proteins. The species names are indicated in each branch and the timescale (1000 years) for the branches are included. B Phylogenetic tree for DDAH. DDAH proteins were only identified in Chordata (magenta), Eubacteria (green) and Arthropoda (blue). Representative species in each phyla are indicated.

Discussion

Uridine insertion/deletion RNA editing is an essential and unique process that takes place in kinetoplastids and is required to create translatable open reading frames in most mitochondrially-encoded mRNAs. While the catalytic editosome/RECC is the catalytic machine that mediates editing steps, accessory proteins are also required for editing. The RESC complex has emerged as the central platform that enables processive and efficient editing and utilization of gRNAs. The RESC comprises an RNA-independent core complex of six central proteins, including the RESC1-RESC2 subcomplex that binds and stabilizes all gRNAs [25, 27, 28]. The RESC component RESC5 is required for stable association of RESC1-RESC2 with the core and proper RESC assembly. Thus, RESC5 appears to form a key part of the foundation of the core RESC. However, RESC5, like the other RESC proteins, harbors no identifiable protein motif or fold and to date, no structures have been reported for any of these components. To begin to gain insight into RESC proteins, we performed structural and biochemical studies on the T. brucei RESC5 component.

Here we report the structure of the key RESC component, RESC5, to high resolution. The structure revealed that RESC5 has a fold that is utilized in interacting with proteins or protein residues. Specifically, our 1.95 Å structure of the T. brucei RESC5 protein revealed that it showed significant structural similarity to the DDAH family of enzymes. DDAH enzymes catalyze the hydrolysis of dimethylarginine residues to L-citrulline and L-dimethylamine [3843]. Dimethylarginine residues are generated by protein degradation and inhibit nitric oxide production by binding to nitric oxide synthase. Hence, DDAH is important in preventing methylarginines from accumulating and inhibiting the generation of nitric oxide [4042]. While RESC5 harbors the same fold overall as DDAH enzymes, it is missing two essential catalytic residues, the cysteine that functions as the nucleophile to initiate hydrolysis and the histidine, which plays a central role in protonation of the leaving group. In RESC5 these residues are instead an alanine and proline, respectively. But interestingly, RESC5 does harbor most of the active site residues that are involved in substrate binding.

While we found no evidence for RESC5 binding to small molecule methylarginine or citrulline, given the striking conservation of substrate binding residues it is possible that RESC5 may be involved in binding to methylated arginine containing proteins. This represents a particularly intriguing possibility because methylarginine has been identified in several kRNA editing factors that coordinate with the RESC. These include RESC13 (also calledTbRGG2), RESC8 (MRB10130) and RESC12 (MRB4160) [56]. Such interactions could function to modulate the dynamic interactions of the RESC core and associated RESC proteins. Indeed, studies have suggested that interactions in the RESC complex are dynamic and may change during RNA processing events [57]. On the other hand, we noted that the putative pocket in RESC5 harbors an overall positive charge. Hence, the region additionally or alternatively could play a role in RNA or nucleic acid binding. Future studies on RESC5 in the context of the full length RESC complex will be needed to fully elucidate the protein-protein and protein-nucleic acid interactions mediated by RESC5.

In summary, we report the high-resolution crystal structure of a key component of the RESC platform that is essential in kinetoplastid RNA editing.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Uncropped gel shown in Fig 1A.

Shown are the fractions obtained from the SEC analyses of RESC5 (fractions 27–29) in the last three protein lanes, see Fig 1A.

(PDF)

S2 Fig. Purification and composite omit electron density map for RESC5.

A Purification of RESC5 showing SDS PAGE analyses of fractions collected from Cobalt NTA purification. The top labels indicate imidazole concentrations used to elute the given fractions. B Sections of simulated annealing composite omit map calculated in Phenix for the RESC5 structure and contoured at 1σ.

(PDF)

S3 Fig. Overlay of RESC5 onto the M. jannaschii IF6.

RESC5 (pink) was superimposed into the IF6 (pdb code: 1G61) structure (cyan) resulting in an rmsd of 3.5 Å for 1170 Cα atoms.

(PDF)

S4 Fig. Assessment of putative pockets in the RESC5 structure by CavityPlus.

Analysis of putative pockets (right). The only significant pocket (checked in this list) with a druggability score of 312 is that corresponding to the catalytic site in DDAH enzymes. The pocket is shown superimposed on the RESC5 cartoon at the left.

(PDF)

S5 Fig. The RESC5(R71A-P180H-A277C) mutant does not bind DDAH substrate or product.

Ribbon diagram showing the overlay of RESC5 (colored pink) with DDAH (colored cyan) and residues subjected to mutation for biochemical assays. Also shown as stick is the location of where the product citrulline binds in the DDAH enzyme.

(PDF)

S1 File

(PDF)

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge beamline 5.0.2 and 5.0.1 for X-ray diffraction data collection.

Data Availability

Coordinates and structure factor amplitudes for RESC5 have been deposited with the Protein Data Bank under the accession code 8DPK.

Funding Statement

This research was supported by Nanaline H Duke Endowed Chair and National Institutes of Health grants (R35GM130290 to M.A.S.). https://www.nigms.nih.gov. The ALS (Berkeley, CA) is a national user facility operated by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory on behalf of the US Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC02-05CH11231, Office of Basic Energy Sciences. Beamline 5.0.2 and 5.0.1 of the ALS, a US Department of Energy Office of Science User Facility under Contract DE-AC02-05CH11231, is supported in part by the ALS-ENABLE program funded by the NIH, National Institute of General Medical Sciences, Grant P30 GM124169-01. There was no additional external funding received for this study. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Stevens JR. Kinetoplastid phylogenetics, with special reference to the evolution of parasitic Trypanosomes. Parasite.2008; 15: 226–232. doi: 10.1051/parasite/2008153226 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Stuart K, Brun R, Croft S, Fairlamb A, Gurtler RE, McKerrow J, et al. Kinetoplastids: related protozoan pathogens, different diseases. J Clin Invest.2008; 118: 1301–1310. doi: 10.1172/JCI33945 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Vickerman K. Developmental cycles and biology of pathogenic trypanosomes. Brit Med Bull. 1985; 41: 105–114. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.bmb.a072036 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Bringaud F, Riviere L, Coustou V. Energy metabolism of trypanosomatids: adaptation to available carbon sources. Mol Biochem Parasitol. 2006; 149:1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.molbiopara.2006.03.017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Simpson L, Sbicego S, Aphasizhev R. Uridine insertion/deletion RNA editing in trypanosome mitochondria: a complex business RNA.2003; 9: 265–276. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Leung SS, Koslowsky DJ. Interactions of mRNAs and gRNAs involved in trypanosome mitochondrial RNA editing: Structure probing of an mRNA bound to its cognate gRNA. RNA. 2011; 7:1803–1816. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Aphasizhev R, Aphasizheva I. Uridine insertion/deletion editing in trypanosomes: a playground for RNA-guided information transfer. Wiley Interdisip Rev RNA. 2011; 2: 669–685. doi: 10.1002/wrna.82 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Aphasizheva I, Aphasizhev R. U-insertion/deletion mRNA-editing holoenzyme : definition in site Trends Parasitol. 2016; 32:144–156. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Aphasizheva I, Aphasizhev R. Mitochondrial RNA quality control in trypanosomes. RNA. 2021; 12:e1638. doi: 10.1002/wrna.1638 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Aphasizheva I, Alfonso J, Carnes J, Cestari I, Cruz-Reyes J, Goringer HU, et al. Lexis and grammar of mitochondrial RNA processing in Trypanosomes. Trends Parasitol. 2020; 36: 337–355. doi: 10.1016/j.pt.2020.01.006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Read LK, Lukeš J, Hashimi, H. Trypanosome RNA editing: the complexity of getting U in and taking U out. Wiley Interdisip Rev RNA. 2016; 7:33–51. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Hermann T, Schmid B, Hermann H, Göringer HU. A three-dimensional working model for a guide RNA from Trypanosoma brucei. Nucleic Acids Res. 1997; 15:2311–2318. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Hinz S, Göringer HU. The guide RNA database (30). Nucleic Acids Res. 1999; 26:168–169. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Stuart KD, Schnaufer A, Ernst NL, Panigrahi AK. Complex management: RNA editing in trypanosomes. TIBS. 2005; 30: 97–105. doi: 10.1016/j.tibs.2004.12.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Pelletier M, Read LK. RBP12 is a multifunctional gene regulatory protein involved in editing and stabilization of specific mitochondrial mRNAs in Trypanosoma brucei. RNA. 2003; 9:457–468. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Schumacher MA, Karamooz E, Zíková A, Trantírek L, Lukeš J. Crystal structures of T. brucei MRP1/MRP2 guide-RNA binding complex reveal RNA matchmaking mechanism. Cell. 2006; 126:701–711. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Schumacher MA, Zeng W, Henderson M. Structures of MERS1, the 5’ processing enzyme of mitochondrial mRNAs in Trypanosoma brucei. RNA. 2020; 26: 69–82. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Shaw PL, McAdams NM, Hast MA, Ammerman ML, Read LK, Schumacher MA. Structures of the T. brucei kRNA editing factor MRB1590 reveal unique RNA binding pore motif contained within an ABC-ATPase fold. Nucleic Acids Res.2015; 43:7096–7109. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Fisk JC, Ammerman ML, Presnyak V, Read LK. TbRGG2, an essential RNA editing accessory factor in two Trypanosoma brucei life cycle stages. J Biol Chem. 2008; 283:23016–23025. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Hashimi H, Zikova A, Panigrahi AK, Stuart KD, Lukeš J. TbRGG1, an essential protein involved in kinetoplastid RNA metabolism that is associated with a novel multiprotein complex RNA. 2008; 14; 970–980. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Sprehe M, Fisk JC, McEvoy SM, Read LK, Schumacher MA. Structure of the Trypanosoma brucei p22 protein, a cytochrome oxidase subunit II-specific RNA-editing accessory factor. J Biol Chem. 2010; 285:18899–18908. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Travis B, Shaw PLR, Liu B, Ravindra K, Iliff H, Al-Hashimi HM, et al. The RRM of the kRNA-editing protein TbRGG2 uses multiple surfaces to bind and remodel RNA. Nucleic Acids Res. 2019; 47:2130–2142. doi: 10.1093/nar/gky1259 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Vondruskov E, van den Burg J, Zikova A, Ernst NL, Stuart K, Benne R, et al. RNA interference analyses suggest a transcript specific regulatory role for mitochondrial RNA-binding proteins MRP1 and MRP2 in RNA editing and other RNA processing in Trypanosoma brucei. J Biol Chem. 2005; 280:2429–2438. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Ammerman ML, Presnyak V, Fisk JC, Foda BM, Read LK. TbRGG2 facilitates kinetoplastid RNA editing initiation and progression past intrinsic pause sites. RNA. 2010; 16:2239–2251. doi: 10.1261/rna.2285510 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Ammerman ML, Hashimi H, Novotna L, Cicova Z, McEvoy SM, Lukeš J, et al. MRB3010 is a core component of the MRB1 complex that facilitates an early step of the kinetoplastid RNA editing process. RNA. 2011; 17:865–877. doi: 10.1261/rna.2446311 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Ammerman ML, Downey KM, Hashimi U, Fisk JC, Tomasello DL, Faktorova D, et al. Architecture of the trypanosome RNA editing accessory complex, MRB1. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012; 40:5637–5650. doi: 10.1093/nar/gks211 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Ammerman ML, Tomasello DL, Faktorova D, Kafkova L, Hashimi H, Lukeš J, et al. A core MRB1 complex component is indispensable for RNA editing in insect and human infective stages of Trypanosoma brucei. PloS ONE. 2013; 8:e78015. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Aphasizheva I, Zhang L, Wang X, Kaake RM, Huang L, Monti S, et al. RNA binding and core complexes constitute the U-Insertion/Deletion editosome. Mol Cell Biol. 2014; 34:4329–4342. doi: 10.1128/MCB.01075-14 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Huang Z, Faktorova, Krizova A, Kafkova L, Read LK, Lukeš J, et al. Integrity of the core mitochondrial RNA-binding complex 1 is vital for trypanosome RNA editing. RNA. 2015; 21:2088–2102. doi: 10.1261/rna.052340.115 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Foda BM, Downey KM, Fisk JC, Read LK. Multifunctional G-rich and RRM-containing domains of TbRGG2 perform separate yet essential functions in trypanosome RNA editing. Eukaryotic Cell. 2012; 11:1119–1131. doi: 10.1128/EC.00175-12 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Kafková L, Ammerman ML, Faktorova D, Fisk JC, Zimmer SL, Sobotka R, et al. Functional characterization of two paralogs that are novel RNA binding proteins influencing mitochondrial transcripts of Trypanosoma brucei. RNA. 2012; 18:1846–1861. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Panigrahi AK, Zikova A, Dalley RA, Acestor N, Ogata Y, Anupama A, et al. Mitochondrial complexes in Trypanosoma brucei: a novel complex and a unique oxidoreductase complex. Mol Cell Proteomics. 2008; 7:534–545. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Hashimi H, Čičová Z, Novotná L, Wen Y-Z, Lukeš J. Kinetoplastid guide RNA biogenesis is dependent on subunits of the mitochondrial RNA binding complex 1 and mitochondrial RNA polymerase. RNA. 2009; 15: 588–599. doi: 10.1261/rna.1411809 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Hashimi H, Zimmer SL, Ammerman ML, Read LK, Lukeš J. Dual core processing: MRB1 is an emerging kinetoplastid RNA editing complex. Trends Parasitol. 2013; 29:91–99. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Simpson RM, Bruno AE, Chen R, Lott K, Tylec BL, Bard JE, et al. Trypanosome RNA editing mediator complex proteins have distinct functions in gRNA utilization Nucleic Acids Res. 2017; 45:7965–7983. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkx458 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Weng J, Aphasizheva I, Etheridge RD, Huang L, Wang X, Falick AM, et al. Guide RNA-binding complex from mitochondria of trypanosomatids. Mol Cell. 2008; 32:198–209. doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2008.08.023 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Aphasizheva I, Yu T, Suematsu T, Liu Q, Mesitvo MV, Yu C, et al. Poly(A) binding KPAF4.5 complex stabilizes kinetoplastid mRNAs in Trypanosoma brucei. Nucleic Acids Res. 2020; 48: 8645–8662. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Orengo CA, Michie AD, Jones S, Jones DT. CATH- a hierarchic classification of protein domain structures. Structure. 1997; 5: 1093–1108. doi: 10.1016/s0969-2126(97)00260-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Tilley S, Santa Maria J, Vallance P, McDonald N. Structural insights into the hydrolysis of cellular nitric oxide synthase inhibitors by dimethylarginine dimethylaminohydrolase. Nat Struct Biol. 2001; 8:679–683. doi: 10.1038/90387 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Wadham C, Mangoni AA. Dimethylarginine dimethylaminohydrolase regulation: a novel therapeutic target in cardiovascular disease. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol. 2009; 5:303–319. doi: 10.1517/17425250902785172 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Frey D, Braun O, Briand C, Vasak M, Grutter MG. Structure of the mammalian NOS regulator dimethylarginine dimethylaminohydrolase:a basis for the design of specific inhibitors. Structure. 2006; 5: 901–911. doi: 10.1016/j.str.2006.03.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Arrigoni F, Ahmetaj B, Leiper J. The biology and therapeutic potential of the DDAH/ADMA pathway. Curr Pharm Des. 2010; 16:4089–4102. doi: 10.2174/138161210794519246 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Hulin JA, Gubareva EA, Jarzebska N, Rodionov RN, Mangoni AA, Tommasi S. Inhibition of dimethylarginine dimethylaminohydrolase (DDAH) enzymes as an emerging therapeutic strategy to target angiogenesis and vasculogenic mimicry in cancer. Front Oncol. 2020; 9: 1455. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2019.01455 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Garnier J-F, Gibrat B, Robson B. GOR secondary structure prediction method version IV. Methods Enzymol. 1996; 266: 540–553. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Kabsch W. XDS. Acta Cryst D16. 2010: 125–132. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Adams PD, Afonine PV, Bunkoczi G, Chen VB, Davis IW, Echols N, et al. PHENIX: a comprehensive Phyton-based system for macromolecular structure solution. Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr. 2010; 66: 213–221. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Emsley P, Cowtan K. Coot: model-building tools for molecular graphics. Acta Crystallogr. 2004; D60: 2126–2132. doi: 10.1107/S0907444904019158 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Letunic I, Bork P. Interactive tree of life (iTOL) v5: an online tool for phylogenetic tree display and annotation. Nucleic Acids Res. 2021; 49: W293–W296. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkab301 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Krissinel E, Hendrick K. Inference of macromolecular assemblies from crystalline State. J Mol Biol. 2007; 372: 774–797. doi: 10.1016/j.jmb.2007.05.022 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Krissinel E, Hendrick K. Secondary-structure matching (SSM), a new tool for fast protein structure alignment in three dimensions. Acta Cryst. 2004; D60: 2256–2268. doi: 10.1107/S0907444904026460 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Groft CM, Beckmann R, Sali A, Burley SK. Crystal structures of ribosome anti-association factor IF6. Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2000; 7: 1156–1164. doi: 10.1038/82017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Gartmann M, Blau M, Armache J-P, Mielke T, Topf M, Beckmann R. Mechanism of eIF6-mediated inhibition of ribosomal subunit joining. J Biol Chem. 2010; 285: 14848–14851. doi: 10.1074/jbc.C109.096057 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Menne TF, Goyenechea B, Sanchez-Puig N, Wong CC, Tonkin LM, Ancliff PJ, et al. The shwachman-bodian-diamond syndrome protein mediates translational activation of ribosomes in yeast. Nat Genet. 2007; 39: 486–495. doi: 10.1038/ng1994 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Xu Y, Wang S, Hu Q, Gao S, Ma X, Zhang W, et al. CavityPlus: a web server for protein cavity detection with pharmacophore modelling, allosteric site identification and covalent ligand binding ability prediction. Nucleic Acids Res. 2018; 46: W374–W379. doi: 10.1093/nar/gky380 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Hong L, Fast W. Inhibition of human dimethylarginine dimethylaminohydrolase-1 by S-nitroso-L-homocysteine and hydrogen peroxide. J Biol Chem. 2007; 282: 34684–34692. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Fisk JC, Li J, Wang H, Aletta JM, Qu J, Read LK. Proteomic analysis reveals diverse classes of arginine methylproteins in mitochondria of Trypanosomes. Mol Cell Proteomics. 2013; 12:302–311. doi: 10.1074/mcp.M112.022533 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Dubey AP, Tylec BL, McAdams NM, Sortino K, Read LK. Trypanosome RNAEditing Substrate Binding complex integrity and function depends on the upstream action of RESC10. Nucleic Acids Res. 2021; 49: 3557–3572. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkab129 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Delano WL. 2002. The PyMOL Molecular Graphics System DeLano Scientific, San Carlos, California. [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Alexander F Palazzo

28 Nov 2022

PONE-D-22-27151Structure of the T. brucei kinetoplastid RNA editing substrate-binding complex core component, RESC5PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Schumacher,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. As you can see from the reviewers comments, there are quite a number of changes that need to be made to the text.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 12 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Alexander F. Palazzo, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please update your submission to use the PLOS LaTeX template. The template and more information on our requirements for LaTeX submissions can be found at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/latex.

3. Thank you for stating in your Funding Statement: 

"This research was supported by Nanaline H Duke Endowed Chair and National Institutes of Health grants (R35GM130290 to M.A.S.). https://www.nigms.nih.gov."

Please provide an amended statement that declares *all* the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now.  Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement. 

Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. 

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

5. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

6. PLOS ONE now requires that authors provide the original uncropped and unadjusted images underlying all blot or gel results reported in a submission’s figures or Supporting Information files. This policy and the journal’s other requirements for blot/gel reporting and figure preparation are described in detail at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-blot-and-gel-reporting-requirements and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-preparing-figures-from-image-files. When you submit your revised manuscript, please ensure that your figures adhere fully to these guidelines and provide the original underlying images for all blot or gel data reported in your submission. See the following link for instructions on providing the original image data: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-original-images-for-blots-and-gels. 

  

In your cover letter, please note whether your blot/gel image data are in Supporting Information or posted at a public data repository, provide the repository URL if relevant, and provide specific details as to which raw blot/gel images, if any, are not available. Email us at plosone@plos.org if you have any questions.

7. We note that you have included the phrase “data not shown” in your manuscript. Unfortunately, this does not meet our data sharing requirements. PLOS does not permit references to inaccessible data. We require that authors provide all relevant data within the paper, Supporting Information files, or in an acceptable, public repository. Please add a citation to support this phrase or upload the data that corresponds with these findings to a stable repository (such as Figshare or Dryad) and provide and URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. Or, if the data are not a core part of the research being presented in your study, we ask that you remove the phrase that refers to these data.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Overall, this paper presents a high resolution structure of a RESC core component (RESC5) at 1.95A; which shows a canonical beta-propeller morphology but otherwise it represents a novel structure that shares no identifiable fold/motif to other protein or structures. While the structural data is sound and improvement can be made in its visual presentation (see suggestions below), the functional data is comparatively weak and overreaching in some concluding statements. There are some discrepancies between the in text and figure references that should also be corrected. This manuscript would benefit from more extensive biochemical experiments to probe RESC5 function or substrate binding (for example - could the alanine / proline in RESC5 be mutated to the cysteine / histidine combination to show binding to L-citrulline since the authors suggest that the other catalytic residues are conserved otherwise). While the high resolution RESC5 structure is novel and significant to understanding the overall RESC super complex, I cannot recommend publication without some major revisions to the functional analysis or more validating biochemical experiments.

pg3 - line 12 - 14; please rewrite for clarity, insert reference for pan-editing

pg5 - line 17 & 22; what program was used to predict disorder? please indicate

pg5 - line 17, semantics on "artificial gene"; should either be a gene synthesis product or artificial gene synthesis, please update

pg5 - line 24, RESC5(7-286) - clarify what do you mean by FL expression construct? Full length? It's not full length if it's already N/C-terminally truncated? Please clarify

pg9 - line 19-22; suggest depicting this as an additional inset for Figure 2, aligning sequence with the secondary structure information (like Fig 5), instead of listing it in body of text.

pg10 - line 1; "two to three-stranded" --> "two- or three-stranded"

pg10 - line 12, 16; how were the structures superimposed? sequence alignment? structural alignment? please clarify what method/algorith was used (if in Pymol)

pg10 - line 14-19 - how weak is this homology (relative to RESC and DDAH) and why is it relevant than if the homology is significantly weaker as evident in the RMSD/Z-score

pg10 - line 16 (Figure S2); is the superimposition with 165 C-alpha (in-text) or 1170 C-alpha (in figure)? Please clarify.

pg11 - line 8-10 - Fig3A doesn't show this, do you mean Figure 3 itself or Figure 3B?

pg11 - line 24 - Figure 3B not Figure 3A is where L-citrulline is modeled

pg12/pg13 - "phylogenetic analyses of RESC5 and DDAH enzymes" - this section needs some major revision in what it is trying to convey. There's no experimental evidence in this work to suggest that RESC5 and DDAH are evolutionary or functional homolog, they are structural homologs at best (and even then, I don't know if I would say its a striking homology). The concluding statements in this section is hand-wavy at best.

Figure 3 (Fig S2) - show 90' rotation as well (overhead view) to better demonstrate superimposition is actually meaningful

Figure 4, X-axis label is partially cut off on the bottom end

Figure 5B - if you're using blue/yellow for conservation and differences in the sequence alignment (Figure 5A), why not use the same color scheme for the structures in 5b?

Reviewer #2: Schumacher et al report the crystal structure of the T. brucei RESC5 protein (aka MRB11870) which is a member of a multiprotein complex that functions in RNA editing. They determined the structure at a resolution of 1.95 Å of a 279 amino acid soluble recombinant protein that represents much (residues 7-286) of this 310 amino acid protein. The protein eluted as a single peak consistent with the size of a monomer but the crystals had two superimposable monomers that differed by two surface exposed loops. The key finding is that the monomer that was discussed has one domain with a propeller-like fold of 13 beta-strands and 10 helices that has homology to a dimethylarginine dimethylaminohydrolase-like (DDAH) fold. A cavity search of the fold identified pockets corresponding to the active site of DDAH enzymes but the fold lacked residues that are essential for DDAH catalytic function. Functional assays of DDAH substrate or L-citrulline product binding that report a thermal shift in a control experiment with RESC5 and no interaction in the presence of citrulline are inconclusive and are somewhat confusing as written. The authors imply that RESC5 may bind to methylated arginine containing proteins and that basic patches on the protein may function in nucleic acid binding and thus RESC5 could be an editing "factor". They also report weak homology to ribosome anti-association factor IF6 and that RESC5 homologs are only conserved among kinetoplastids although DDAD enzyme homologs are conserved among higher eukaryotes.

Determination of the RESC5 structure is well done and useful and the identification of the DDAH motif is intriguing but the studies of its potential function are uninformative especially given the genetic tractability of T. brucei. Thus, the report does not substantially advance the understanding of its role in RNA editing or its interaction with RESC. There is also no support that it might be a drug target other than its presence in the parasite and absence in the host which however contains DDAD homologs which may present toxicity/off target complications.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 Mar 2;18(3):e0282155. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0282155.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


27 Dec 2022

PONE-D-22-27151

Response to Reviewers

Our response to the editor’s and reviewer’s critiques are below (in red text).

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf,

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

RESPONSE: We have tried to ensure that we have used the PLOS ONE style requirements in the revision.

2. Please update your submission to use the PLOS LaTeX template. The template and more information on our requirements for LaTeX submissions can be found at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/latex.

RESPONSE: We have followed this template outline for the document

3. Thank you for stating in your Funding Statement:

"This research was supported by Nanaline H Duke Endowed Chair and National Institutes of Health grants (R35GM130290 to M.A.S.). https://www.nigms.nih.gov."

Please provide an amended statement that declares *all* the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now. Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement. Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

RESPONSE: We have modified the Funding Statement as recommended and also included this amended Funding Statement in our cover letter.

4. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

RESPONSE: We have fixed this discrepancy.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

RESPONSE: We have done so.

5. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

RESPONSE: Our data availability statement included the information about the deposition. Specifically, the coordinates and structure factor amplitudes for the RESC5 structure have been deposited in the Protein Data Bank under the accession code 8DPK and are currently HPUB (hold for publication). They will be released and made available upon manuscript acceptance.

6. PLOS ONE now requires that authors provide the original uncropped and unadjusted images underlying all blot or gel results reported in a submission’s figures or Supporting Information files. This policy and the journal’s other requirements for blot/gel reporting and figure preparation are described in detail at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-blot-and-gel-reporting-requirements and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-preparing-figures-from-image-files. When you submit your revised manuscript, please ensure that your figures adhere fully to these guidelines and provide the original underlying images for all blot or gel data reported in your submission. See the following link for instructions on providing the original image data: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-original-images-for-blots-and-gels.

RESPONSE: We have added the uncropped gel figure shown in Fig 1 in the supplementary file. The other gel (Fig S2 is shown in uncropped form).

In your cover letter, please note whether your blot/gel image data are in Supporting Information or posted at a public data repository, provide the repository URL if relevant, and provide specific details as to which raw blot/gel images, if any, are not available. Email us at plosone@plos.org if you have any questions.

RESPONSE: We have noted this in the Cover letter.

7. We note that you have included the phrase “data not shown” in your manuscript. Unfortunately, this does not meet our data sharing requirements. PLOS does not permit references to inaccessible data. We require that authors provide all relevant data within the paper, Supporting Information files, or in an acceptable, public repository. Please add a citation to support this phrase or upload the data that corresponds with these findings to a stable repository (such as Figshare or Dryad) and provide and URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. Or, if the data are not a core part of the research being presented in your study, we ask that you remove the phrase that refers to these data.

RESPONSE: The data were not a core part of the research and hence we have removed the phrase referring to these data.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: Yes

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Overall, this paper presents a high resolution structure of a RESC core component (RESC5) at 1.95A; which shows a canonical beta-propeller morphology but otherwise it represents a novel structure that shares no identifiable fold/motif to other protein or structures. While the structural data is sound and improvement can be made in its visual presentation (see suggestions below), the functional data is comparatively weak and overreaching in some concluding statements. There are some discrepancies between the in text and figure references that should also be corrected. This manuscript would benefit from more extensive biochemical experiments to probe RESC5 function or substrate binding (for example - could the alanine / proline in RESC5 be mutated to the cysteine / histidine combination to show binding to L-citrulline since the authors suggest that the other catalytic residues are conserved otherwise). While the high resolution RESC5 structure is novel and significant to understanding the overall RESC super complex, I cannot recommend publication without some major revisions to the functional analysis or more validating biochemical experiments.

RESPONSE: As suggested, we generated a RESC5 mutant in which key catalytic residues within the RESC5 pocket were changed to corresponding residues in DDAH. The mutant protein was expressed, purified and utilized in thermal shift assays. The data are now included as Fig 4B (also see Fig S5). In addition, we have followed the reviewer’s suggestions in presentation and text edits, as detailed below. We thank the reviewer for their very helpful critiques and suggestions.

pg3 - line 12 - 14; please rewrite for clarity, insert reference for pan-editing

RESPONSE: We have described pan editing for clarity and have inserted references at this point. We thank the reviewer for suggesting this.

pg5 - line 17 & 22; what program was used to predict disorder? please indicate

RESPONSE: The program used was GOR version IV. This has been added along with the relevant reference.

pg5 - line 17, semantics on "artificial gene"; should either be a gene synthesis product or artificial gene synthesis, please update

RESPONSE: We have changed this to “synthetic gene”.

pg5 - line 24, RESC5(7-286) - clarify what do you mean by FL expression construct? Full length? It's not full length if it's already N/C-terminally truncated? Please clarify

RESPONSE: This has been corrected to the construct encoding RESC5(7-310). This construct contains all the C-terminal residues but lacks the N-terminal residues 1-6.

pg9 - line 19-22; suggest depicting this as an additional inset for Figure 2, aligning sequence with the secondary structure information (like Fig 5), instead of listing it in body of text.

RESPONSE:We would prefer to retain these details in the text.

pg10 - line 1; "two to three-stranded" --> "two- or three-stranded"

RESPONSE:Changed to “or” as suggested.

pg10 - line 12, 16; how were the structures superimposed? sequence alignment? structural alignment? please clarify what method/algorith was used (if in Pymol)

RESPONSE:The structures were superimposed using the program Secondary-structure matching (SSM), which is a tool used for protein structure alignment in three dimensions. This information and the reference [50] have been included in the revision.

pg10 - line 14-19 - how weak is this homology (relative to RESC and DDAH) and why is it relevant than if the homology is significantly weaker as evident in the RMSD/Z-score.

RESPONSE: The RMSD between RESC5 and IF6 is 5.8 A for 165 Ca atoms whereas the RMSD with DDAH structure is 2.4 A for a superimposition of 247 Ca atoms. So the DDAH structures are much more similar to RESC5 than IF6. However, we included IF6 as it was output in our structure similarity searches.

pg10 - line 16 (Figure S2); is the superimposition with 165 C-alpha (in-text) or 1170 C-alpha (in figure)? Please clarify.

RESPONSE: We thank the reviewer for catching this. This was a typo and should have been 165 Ca atoms. This has been fixed in the Fig. S2 legend.

pg11 - line 8-10 - Fig3A doesn't show this, do you mean Figure 3 itself or Figure 3B?

RESPONSE: Yes, this should be Fig 3B. This has been corrected now in the text. We thank the reviewer for pointing this out.

pg11 - line 24 - Figure 3B not Figure 3A is where L-citrulline is modeled

RESPONSE:Again, this should have been Fig 3B. this has been fixed and we thank the reviewer for catching this.

pg12/pg13 - "phylogenetic analyses of RESC5 and DDAH enzymes" - this section needs some major revision in what it is trying to convey. There's no experimental evidence in this work to suggest that RESC5 and DDAH are evolutionary or functional homolog, they are structural homologs at best (and even then, I don't know if I would say its a striking homology). The concluding statements in this section is hand-wavy at best.

RESPONSE: As suggested, we have rewritten and heavily revised this section of the manuscript. The reviewer is correct, we have no experimental evidence to suggest that RESC5 and DDAH are evolutionarily related. We feel it is important to describe/determine whether DDAH and RESC5 protein homologs are found in all eukaryotes or are limited to certain organisms. Indeed, an interesting finding is that RESC5 protein homologs are only found in the kinetoplastida while these organisms have no DDAH homologs. We have rewritten the section to simply report this information and reflect these findings.

Figure 3 (Fig S2) - show 90' rotation as well (overhead view) to better demonstrate superimposition is actually meaningful

RESPONSE: We have added the 90 degree rotated view (overhead view), as recommended.

Figure 4, X-axis label is partially cut off on the bottom end

RESPONSE: Thank the reviewer for pointing this out. We have made sure that the X-axis is not cut off in the uploaded figure.

Figure 5B - if you're using blue/yellow for conservation and differences in the sequence alignment (Figure 5A), why not use the same color scheme for the structures in 5b?

RESPONSE: We have matched the colors by making the conservation pink and non-conserved grey in both the alignment and the models. We thank the reviewer for this suggestion.

Reviewer #2: Schumacher et al report the crystal structure of the T. brucei RESC5 protein (aka MRB11870) which is a member of a multiprotein complex that functions in RNA editing. They determined the structure at a resolution of 1.95 Å of a 279 amino acid soluble recombinant protein that represents much (residues 7-286) of this 310 amino acid protein. The protein eluted as a single peak consistent with the size of a monomer but the crystals had two superimposable monomers that differed by two surface exposed loops. The key finding is that the monomer that was discussed has one domain with a propeller-like fold of 13 beta-strands and 10 helices that has homology to a dimethylarginine dimethylaminohydrolase-like (DDAH) fold. A cavity search of the fold identified pockets corresponding to the active site of DDAH enzymes but the fold lacked residues that are essential for DDAH catalytic function. Functional assays of DDAH substrate or L-citrulline product binding that report a thermal shift in a control experiment with RESC5 and no interaction in the presence of citrulline are inconclusive and are somewhat confusing as written. The authors imply that RESC5 may bind to methylated arginine containing proteins and that basic patches on the protein may function in nucleic acid binding and thus RESC5 could be an editing "factor". They also report weak homology to ribosome anti-association factor IF6 and that RESC5 homologs are only conserved among kinetoplastids although DDAD enzyme homologs are conserved among higher eukaryotes.

Determination of the RESC5 structure is well done and useful and the identification of the DDAH motif is intriguing but the studies of its potential function are uninformative especially given the genetic tractability of T. brucei. Thus, the report does not substantially advance the understanding of its role in RNA editing or its interaction with RESC. There is also no support that it might be a drug target other than its presence in the parasite and absence in the host which however contains DDAD homologs which may present toxicity/off target complications.

RESPONSE: We thank the reviewer for their comments and suggestions. As recommended, we have rewritten the section describing the thermal shift assays. We mentioned RESC5 as a drug target in the discussion, but the reviewer’s point is well taken- we have now removed that sentence. Our focus is on the determination and description of the first structure of any RESC component to high resolution. However, as recommended by the reviewer we have performed additional experiments to assess the structure and function of RESC5. These data are reported in Fig 4B.

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. We have done this with the result being that all files were found to be “converted to a valid TIF file”, RGB, 8 bit depth, with LZW compression. Files that were too large were resized, while retaining the needed resolution and resulting in sizes of 10 MB or less.

Attachment

Submitted filename: ResponseToReviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Alexander F Palazzo

3 Jan 2023

PONE-D-22-27151R1Structure of the T. brucei kinetoplastid RNA editing substrate-binding complex core component, RESC5PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Schumacher,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but that the manuscript requires a text change before it fully meets PLOS ONE’s publication criteria. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. In particular, we ask that you please omit the term "PCR" from the manuscript when you are referring to protocols where a thermocycler is used to measure protein stability. "PCR" stands for the polymerase chain reaction and involves the amplification of DNA using oligonucleotides and a thermo-stable polymerase. For an example on how to correctly write about the method you use, see: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23046506/

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 17 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Alexander F. Palazzo, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 Mar 2;18(3):e0282155. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0282155.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


4 Jan 2023

We have removed all funding related text from the manuscript.

(we also include in the response to reviewers, our responses to the comments from the reviewers).

Attachment

Submitted filename: ResponseToReviewers.docx

Decision Letter 2

Alexander F Palazzo

8 Feb 2023

Structure of the T. brucei kinetoplastid RNA editing substrate-binding complex core component, RESC5

PONE-D-22-27151R2

Dear Dr. Schumacher,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Alexander F. Palazzo, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Alexander F Palazzo

17 Feb 2023

PONE-D-22-27151R2

Structure of the T. brucei kinetoplastid RNA editing substrate-binding complex core component, RESC5

Dear Dr. Schumacher:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Alexander F. Palazzo

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Uncropped gel shown in Fig 1A.

    Shown are the fractions obtained from the SEC analyses of RESC5 (fractions 27–29) in the last three protein lanes, see Fig 1A.

    (PDF)

    S2 Fig. Purification and composite omit electron density map for RESC5.

    A Purification of RESC5 showing SDS PAGE analyses of fractions collected from Cobalt NTA purification. The top labels indicate imidazole concentrations used to elute the given fractions. B Sections of simulated annealing composite omit map calculated in Phenix for the RESC5 structure and contoured at 1σ.

    (PDF)

    S3 Fig. Overlay of RESC5 onto the M. jannaschii IF6.

    RESC5 (pink) was superimposed into the IF6 (pdb code: 1G61) structure (cyan) resulting in an rmsd of 3.5 Å for 1170 Cα atoms.

    (PDF)

    S4 Fig. Assessment of putative pockets in the RESC5 structure by CavityPlus.

    Analysis of putative pockets (right). The only significant pocket (checked in this list) with a druggability score of 312 is that corresponding to the catalytic site in DDAH enzymes. The pocket is shown superimposed on the RESC5 cartoon at the left.

    (PDF)

    S5 Fig. The RESC5(R71A-P180H-A277C) mutant does not bind DDAH substrate or product.

    Ribbon diagram showing the overlay of RESC5 (colored pink) with DDAH (colored cyan) and residues subjected to mutation for biochemical assays. Also shown as stick is the location of where the product citrulline binds in the DDAH enzyme.

    (PDF)

    S1 File

    (PDF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: ResponseToReviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: ResponseToReviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    Coordinates and structure factor amplitudes for RESC5 have been deposited with the Protein Data Bank under the accession code 8DPK.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES